Assault weapons ban back on Obama's webpage

[SUBMAN1]

That didn't take long. Shows how sleazy he is that he hides the facts during his campaign, and then after election, puts it back up:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

-S

[August]

Sorry Sub, I read that on his website the day before the election.

[MothBalls]

I have a good friend who reminds me of you. Once he forms an opinion about something it's cast in stone and he's never open to seeing anything from any other perspective. Some day I hope to meet you in person and buy you a beer, and have a nice friendly debate over many issues.

Until then I can only use my imagination. I imagine you sound just like this: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d4_1226471679

[joea]

4 more years of whines, just like the last 8 except from the right instead of the left. Ah well, the price of free speech. :up:

[Stealth Hunter]

Just ignore him. That's all we've got to do. We never get anything new from SUBMAN1. It's either global warming or the Democrats that he's ranting about.

I will confess that his argument about Hitler being Atheist... was priceless. I laughed my ass off.:rotfl:

[Letum]

4 more years of whines, just like the last 8 except from the right instead of the left. Ah well, the price of free speech. :up:

No! the advantage of it!

[August]

Just ignore him. That's all we've got to do. We never get anything new from SUBMAN1. It's either global warming or the Democrats that he's ranting about.

I will confess that his argument about Hitler being Atheist... was priceless. I laughed my ass off.:rotfl:

And all you ever rant about is the Republicans or religion yet I still support your right to be heard. Is what he's saying that upsetting to you?

[Sailor Steve]

What Subman says doesn't upset me at all. In fact, I agree with him a lot. As for the way he tends to say it? Well, I think Mothballs put it best.

[Stealth Hunter]

Just ignore him. That's all we've got to do. We never get anything new from SUBMAN1. It's either global warming or the Democrats that he's ranting about.

I will confess that his argument about Hitler being Atheist... was priceless. I laughed my ass off.:rotfl:

And all you ever rant about is the Republicans or religion yet I still support your right to be heard. Is what he's saying that upsetting to you?

Hardly. I also discuss science, aviation, history, and games.

The only times I've recently ranted about politics was during the election and campaigning sessions (even then, so was everyone else on the Internet). The only time I rant about religion is when somebody hijacks a thread with it or makes an inaccurate claim linked to it.

The blandness and lack of variation is what upsets me more than anything.

[August]

Hardly. I also discuss science, aviation, history, and games.

Subman posts that stuff as well. Maybe you're only seeing what you want to see?

[Stealth Hunter]

Perhaps, although I do take note of his absences from the boards (stretching from a few hours to a few days). Anymore, when he does come here, it's to the GT board.

[Digital_Trucker]

4 more years of whines, just like the last 8 except from the right instead of the left. Ah well, the price of free speech. :up:
No! the advantage of it!

Amen!

[Konovalov]

4 more years of whines, just like the last 8 except from the right instead of the left. Ah well, the price of free speech. :up:
Yep, more of the same.

[Skybird]

4 more years of whines, just like the last 8 except from the right instead of the left. Ah well, the price of free speech. :up:
Or the abuse of it.

[nikimcbee]

There's a place you can buy ammo online? Do you remeber any names? One place had it for pretty cheap, but I don't remember the name.:oops:

[Zachstar]

Why don't we just make it legal with minimum paperwork to pack a full auto AK-47.. Lets take it further and make owning a 50 cal all the rage. "Them terrorists wont mess with me when I can tear apart the neighborhood with a single box" eh?

I am pro 2nd amendment but only to a limit.

If your 44 or your 12g Buckshot can't do the job.. You do not need to play with guns.

[Stealth Hunter]

Hell, let's legalize RPGs and grenades while we're at it!

[subchaser12]

If your 44 or your 12g Buckshot can't do the job.. You do not need to play with guns.

What he said.

If you want to shoot the big guns join the military and get it out of your system.

[SUBMAN1]

Why don't we just make it legal with minimum paperwork to pack a full auto AK-47.. Lets take it further and make owning a 50 cal all the rage. "Them terrorists wont mess with me when I can tear apart the neighborhood with a single box" eh?

I am pro 2nd amendment but only to a limit.

If your 44 or your 12g Buckshot can't do the job.. You do not need to play with guns.
If you knew anything about guns, you'd already know that you can do all these things and many people do. I have several friends with full auto AK's and full auto MP5's. I've also put many a shot down range from .50 cal's.

Guess what? No one 'ever' uses something like this in a crime. You'd be hard pressed to find more than one or two cases. Handguns tun out to be the weapon of choice in 99% of all gun related crimes. Even sporting rifles fail to make even the 1% mark and fall far short of it by orders of magnitude.

But I guess they look ugly. Lets ban them because they look ugly. Gun control people are all stupid in my opinion because they fail to look at the facts. Actually they are just sheep.

The real reason is the Gov doesn't want the people to be able to fight back effectively.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Sorry Sub, I read that on his website the day before the election.

Really? I've followed that with the NRA page and they announced it was put back on. I went looking for it before the election because it was removed at one point. Seems it was put back on slightly earlier than expected.

-S

[nikimcbee]

I have a .58 caliber, is that a problem?:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

I have a .58 caliber, is that a problem?:rotfl:In Zachstars world - yes.

[Hylander_1314]

Yeah well they can't have my carbine or my cap and ball pistols. The latter are family heirlooms from my great great grand uncle who was in the US Cavaly back in the 1870s and 1880s. He was 100 years older than me and passed away when I was 6 years old. Dad kept them for me until I was old enough to have them, and still do. 2 of them are 44s, and one is a fiveshot 32 that fit in along the top of his riding boot. All 3 still fire, but are awefully loud when you do fire them. And the black powder makes a huge cloud of smoke.

[subchaser12]

If you knew anything about guns, you'd already know that you can do all these things and many people do. I have several friends with full auto AK's and full auto MP5's. I've also put many a shot down range from .50 cal's.

The real reason is the Gov doesn't want the people to be able to fight back effectively.

-S

Just curious Subman1 were you ever in the military?

If you knew anything about the law you would know if you get caught doing that you will go to prison. Go ahead and empty a magazine from a full auto weapon that can't be full auto. You're doing time even if it was justified.

The government isn't worried about you fighting back. You really think you are going to stop a lowly infantry squad rolling into your house? What about a Bradley with its 25MM cannon? Nope, if they want you they will get you, full auto or not.

I never even used burst in the military. Full auto and burst was just for fun to play around with, don't use it. Semi auto is all you need, anything else won't hit jack. Full auto is for the movies. Taking it off semi auto is asking for a jam.

Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.

[August]

Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.

It's not for you to say what people "need".

[subchaser12]

Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.

It's not for you to say what people "need".

Sure it is for me to say. I'm a voter. I'm not an anti-gun person, but Joe citizen does not need .50 cals and howitzers. Sorry.

[August]

Sorry Sub, I read that on his website the day before the election.

Really? I've followed that with the NRA page and they announced it was put back on. I went looking for it before the election because it was removed at one point. Seems it was put back on slightly earlier than expected.

-S

Well the whole thing is immaterial anyways. It's the Democrats in Congress who will be the ones pushing anti gun agenda not the President.

[August]

Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.
It's not for you to say what people "need".
Sure it is for me to say. I'm a voter. I'm not an anti-gun person, but Joe citizen does not need .50 cals and howitzers. Sorry.

Howitzers and .50's are not what's being discussed here. Neither are even being considered for any additional legislation. We're talking about small and medium caliber semi automatic "military style" firearms, that are, cosmetics aside, identical to many popular hunting rifles, not to mention most home defense weapons.

[subchaser12]

We're talking about small and medium caliber semi automatic "military style" firearms, that are, cosmetics aside, identical to many popular hunting rifles, not to mention most home defense weapons.

Wrong. A semi automatic AK-47 is not even in the same ballpark as a hunting rifle or shotgun. What planet do you people live on? This is America, this is not Gaza or a farm in Africa, you do not need AK's and M-16's. You all look like fools being this paranoid you know. Fox News panders to this and all of you all look like fools.

Let's be real, getting rid of the guns and bibles in this country would solve 90% of its problems.

[August]

[Let's be real, getting rid of the guns and bibles in this country would solve 90% of its problems.
So your true colors come out in the end. You profess not to be anti-gun but in reality, you are, as well as anti religious freedom. What other constitutional rights do you oppose?

And BTW you ought to brush up on your knowledge of firearms as well as the language of the laws you are supporting. As for your comparison to Gaza and Africa have you ever thought that perhaps those rights you find so problematic might be part of the reason American isn't like those places?

[Stealth Hunter]

Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.
It's not for you to say what people "need".
Sure it is for me to say. I'm a voter. I'm not an anti-gun person, but Joe citizen does not need .50 cals and howitzers. Sorry.

Howitzers and .50's are not what's being discussed here. Neither are even being considered for any additional legislation. We're talking about small and medium caliber semi automatic "military style" firearms, that are, cosmetics aside, identical to many popular hunting rifles, not to mention most home defense weapons.

.50 cals are being discussed. They're guns aren't they?:p

Seriously, the last thing we need are people running around with these types of guns. S*** is bound to happen either way, but it would be worse off with what you're proposing. Criminals don't have restrictions imposed on guns as of now. Imagine if we gave them the right to purchase AR-15s (which come with semi auto and auto firing modes).

A .22 pistol or a pump-action shotgun will work for home defense. Hunting rifles wouldn't be bad either. Anything else is just overkill. Magnums ought to be illegal, given how dangerous they are (if a .454 bullet misses you, the shockwave it sends out is so powerful that it will still break down tissue in your muscles).

EDIT: Meant a .454 bullet, not a .44.

[subchaser12]

[Let's be real, getting rid of the guns and bibles in this country would solve 90% of its problems.
So your true colors come out in the end. You profess not to be anti-gun but in reality, you are, as well as anti religious freedom. What other constitutional rights do you oppose?

And BTW you ought to brush up on your knowledge of firearms as well as the language of the laws you are supporting.

I'm not "anti", because anti means activist. I don't put any effort into taking guns or bibles away. However if guns and bibles went away I wouldn't shed any tears. Religion is just Santa Clause for adults. The government can't watch us all 24/7 so they want the masses to think there is an invisible man watching us. Oh, and he needs money, he made the earth in 8 days but he needs money put in the pot. Pleease. I mean come on, there is an invisible man in the sky getting angry when I masterbate? ha, who writes that stuff.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I don't know, that is all anyone can honestly say with certainty. If god is as all knowing as people say he sure lets a lot of total maniacal scumbags run his religion down here. I mean look at the current pope, an ex Hitler youth. Why does god's sales rep on earth need a bulletproof car, I mean that shows no faith there.

[Frame57]

[Let's be real, getting rid of the guns and bibles in this country would solve 90% of its problems.
So your true colors come out in the end. You profess not to be anti-gun but in reality, you are, as well as anti religious freedom. What other constitutional rights do you oppose?

And BTW you ought to brush up on your knowledge of firearms as well as the language of the laws you are supporting.

I'm not "anti", because anti means activist. I don't put any effort into taking guns or bibles away. However if guns and bibles went away I wouldn't shed any tears. Religion is just Santa Clause for adults. The government can't watch us all 24/7 so they want the masses to think there is an invisible man watching us. Oh, and he needs money, he made the earth in 8 days but he needs money put in the pot. Pleease. I mean come on, there is an invisible man in the sky getting angry when I masterbate? ha, who writes that stuff.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I don't know, that is all anyone can honestly say with certainty. If god is as all knowing as people say he sure lets a lot of total maniacal scumbags run his religion down here. I mean look at the current pope, an ex Hitler youth. Why does god's sales rep on earth need a bulletproof car, I mean that shows no faith there.Dude! Get a girl, they are a lot more fun than spanking your monkey...or your forefather as you see it...:D

[nikimcbee]

[Let's be real, getting rid of the guns and bibles in this country would solve 90% of its problems.
So your true colors come out in the end. You profess not to be anti-gun but in reality, you are, as well as anti religious freedom. What other constitutional rights do you oppose?

And BTW you ought to brush up on your knowledge of firearms as well as the language of the laws you are supporting. As for your comparison to Gaza and Africa have you ever thought that perhaps those rights you find so problematic might be part of the reason American isn't like those places?


He needs to visit East LA, detroit, South Chigago, St Louis, etc. Gaza is probably safer than these places.

[nikimcbee]

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3133/rockytankac3.jpg (http://imageshack.us/?x=my6&myref=http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php)

I want one of these!:up:

[elanaiba]

We're talking about small and medium caliber semi automatic "military style" firearms, that are, cosmetics aside, identical to many popular hunting rifles, not to mention most home defense weapons.
Wrong. A semi automatic AK-47 is not even in the same ballpark as a hunting rifle or shotgun.

But the Assault Weapons Ban... doesn't ban semi-auto AKs. It just bans semi-auto AKs with certain external features. As long as cosmetically they comply to certain silly requirements, the internals can be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

[1480]

We're talking about small and medium caliber semi automatic "military style" firearms, that are, cosmetics aside, identical to many popular hunting rifles, not to mention most home defense weapons.
Wrong. A semi automatic AK-47 is not even in the same ballpark as a hunting rifle or shotgun.

But the Assault Weapons Ban... doesn't ban semi-auto AKs. It just bans semi-auto AKs with certain external features. As long as cosmetically they comply to certain silly requirements, the internals can be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

I'm a big fan of the 2nd amendment. But not a big fan of any weapon that would make my vest and torso look like swiss cheese.

[breadcatcher101]

With respect to all, I as a law-abiding citizen want to have any type of firearm I desire. The real topic of all this talk is freedom of choice--or lack of it. When you get into an area where the goverment chooses for you than you have in effect lost that freedom.

It seems here that most of you support firearm ownership but some of you want exceptions as to what type should be allowed. This IMO is a critical error. Back when the Bill of Rights was adopted the smooth-bore musket was the weapon of it's time. There was never a restriction that allowed only some to have bows and arrows instead.

[1480]

With respect to all, I as a law-abiding citizen want to have any type of firearm I desire. The real topic of all this talk is freedom of choice--or lack of it. When you get into an area where the goverment chooses for you than you have in effect lost that freedom.

It seems here that most of you support firearm ownership but some of you want exceptions as to what type should be allowed. This IMO is a critical error. Back when the Bill of Rights was adopted the smooth-bore musket was the weapon of it's time. There was never a restriction that allowed only some to have bows and arrows instead.

I understand your position and respect that. However, for an example lets use an AR-15. One with a 30 round magazine. the 5.56 or .223 is not a great round when hunting deer. Terrible for bird and laughable against bear. So hunting is not it's calling in life.

The 5.56 or .223 is pretty good against human targets. Low recoil lets you put multiple rounds on target accurately enough in quick time. It penetrates body armor very well.

The problem is. I have encountered quite a few citizens armed with these military style weapons. None of which were the law abidding types. Hard to sit at the movies with one strapped on your back. It's not a good choice for home protection unless you live by yourself.

I'm all for concealed carry. I firmly believe that a lot of street crime would go down. But you cannot carry an "assault" rifle concealed.

Thanks for allowing me to share.

[breadcatcher101]

One of my guns is an AR-15 made by colt. It has a 20 inch barrel and I use a 20 round mag instead of a 30. It is not a "hunting rifle" as you say although it can be used against small varmits. Excellent rifle out to 300 yards. As I own a small farm it also can be used as a self-defence weapon. I just choose to have it as I like the look and feel of it.

I don't hunt anymore, haven't in over 20 years but I enjoy target shooting up to 500 yards. This whole gun control thing really has nothing to do with hunting anyway as some may think.

It is about protection from those who would harm you or your family. Many have died from the hands of thugs who either had a gun or simply out numbered them. You may not need a AR-15 to protect yourself but I want the choice to have one.

It is most important to never allow yourself to loose the ability to choose, that freedom of choice we do have. Once lost you will never ever get it back.

[RickC Sniper]

A .22 pistol or a pump-action shotgun will work for home defense. Hunting rifles wouldn't be bad either. Anything else is just overkill. Magnums ought to be illegal, given how dangerous they are (if a .44 bullet misses you, the shockwave it sends out is so powerful that it will still break down tissue in your muscles).

7mm magnum and 300 magnum are VERY popular hunting rifle calibers. Or are you only referring to handguns here?

[Bewolf]

Hm. The firearm debate allways reminds me of the drug discussion. Ppl claim the right to own and use it for real (home defense, sports, hunting) or hypothetical reasons (2d. amandment, ideological reasons, what I do and own is to me and nobody else) vs. the public good and percieved common sense. Probably a neverending debate as both sides have valid arguments.

Nevertheless, I personally got myself on the anti side. Simply because I had to answer myself the following question.....what are guns ultimately made for?

That is to kill or injure. Nothing else. No other tool possess that quality. That does not mean there are no needs to use it. But for me that means I simply will have to avoid these needs.

[Stealth Hunter]

A .22 pistol or a pump-action shotgun will work for home defense. Hunting rifles wouldn't be bad either. Anything else is just overkill. Magnums ought to be illegal, given how dangerous they are (if a .44 bullet misses you, the shockwave it sends out is so powerful that it will still break down tissue in your muscles).

7mm magnum and 300 magnum are VERY popular hunting rifle calibers. Or are you only referring to handguns here?

Just making the point that you don't need anything too fancy to get the job done. Basic guns are just as lethal as advanced guns.

[elanaiba]

From the point of view of the US Constitution... one has to understand the 2nd amendament is made to protect the citizens against the government. Or to defend against a foreign ivader. Utopic? Maybe... or maybe not. But thats its purpose. So its not the deer thats the problem, but rather the "alien from outer space". Texas revolution anyone?

For more of the same but different civilization one can look at Switzerland. Yes sir they're paid to keep their ASSAULT WEAPON at home. full auto that is. Do they use them for crimes? Hardly.

But then again, facts are "assault weapons" are hardly used for crimes in the US either. They just look bad in the press. Its harder to say "no one should be allowed to own a handgun" with a straight face, you see.

[Sailor Steve]

Just curious Subman1 were you ever in the military?

If you knew anything about the law you would know if you get caught doing that you will go to prison. Go ahead and empty a magazine from a full auto weapon that can't be full auto. You're doing time even if it was justified.
If you knew anything about the law you would know that you can own fully automatic weapons via the proper federal licensing. Shooting them at approved ranges is also perfectly legal. It requires a lot of background checks, and a lot of money, but over a quarter-million fully functioning machine guns are currently owned in the United States today.

The government isn't worried about you fighting back. You really think you are going to stop a lowly infantry squad rolling into your house? What about a Bradley with its 25MM cannon? Nope, if they want you they will get you, full auto or not.
Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.
But that's why the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place. The Revolution started when the Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to 'collect' the cannons in a privately held armory. How 'real' do you want us to get?

[Sailor Steve]

A .22 pistol or a pump-action shotgun will work for home defense. Hunting rifles wouldn't be bad either. Anything else is just overkill.
I have to disagree on hunting rifles. A 30-06 runs the risk of going through the bad guy, through the wall, across the street, through the neighbor's wall and through the neigbor.

Not saying anything about ownership, just that it's a bad idea in those conditions. I prefer a good old-fashioned .45.

[Zachstar]

I have a .58 caliber, is that a problem?:rotfl:In Zachstars world - yes.

Take a hike Subman. A 50 cal is the short name most often used for a large machine gun.

Why don't you go back to conspiricy theories about global warming before throwing more of your libel here.

[Zachstar]

Seriously people. A large shot can still go through houses. What do you need an assault rifle for? You are not facing an army of crooks and if you did it would be close quarters where a shotgun or a pistol will do far more good.

As for that crap that the ban is because the gov is somehow afraid we will rebel with them. I gurandamntee you that anyone with even half a brain is NOT going to bring an AK to a fight. They will bring their deadly rifles and scopes with large bullets that can tear through a tree like it is nothing, Shotguns with buckshot that can do insane damage at close range, And deadly powerful pistols.

[Stealth Hunter]

I have a .58 caliber, is that a problem?:rotfl:In Zachstars world - yes.

Like I said, let's also legalize RPGs and grenades. If .50 cals are OK, why stop there? Hey- let's also legalize MISSLES!

[Yahoshua]

If you knew anything about guns, you'd already know that you can do all these things and many people do. I have several friends with full auto AK's and full auto MP5's. I've also put many a shot down range from .50 cal's.

The real reason is the Gov doesn't want the people to be able to fight back effectively.

-S

Just curious Subman1 were you ever in the military?

If you knew anything about the law you would know if you get caught doing that you will go to prison. Go ahead and empty a magazine from a full auto weapon that can't be full auto. You're doing time even if it was justified.

The government isn't worried about you fighting back. You really think you are going to stop a lowly infantry squad rolling into your house? What about a Bradley with its 25MM cannon? Nope, if they want you they will get you, full auto or not.

I never even used burst in the military. Full auto and burst was just for fun to play around with, don't use it. Semi auto is all you need, anything else won't hit jack. Full auto is for the movies. Taking it off semi auto is asking for a jam.

Joe six pack does NOT need an armory filled with assault weapons. Get real.

This is a good compressed explanation of Class III weapons and NFA weapons in general.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_III_NFA_firearm


Yes Machine Guns are legal and yes we can own them. However the majority of machineguns are collectibles and do nothing but sit in a safe and look pretty on a wall. Sound supressors are grteat and wonderful tools for reducing noise pollution and preserving your hearing. In Europe it is easier to get a sound supressor than it is to get a firearm.

Also, by definition an "Assault Rifle" (any object can be used for assault) must be an intermediate caliber between that of a pistol and battle-rifle (between .380 ACP and 8mm) and the weapon in question must be capable of slective fire between semi-auto and fully-automatic fire.

Regardless of your opinion, it is legal and moreover a birthright of the responsible law-abiding U.S. citizen to own, posess, and enjoy these firearms in a safe and responsible manner.




Think on this for a minute:

If the government doesn't plan on doing anything bad to us citizens, why are governmnet agencies or special-interest groups so intent on disarming the populace?

[Yahoshua]

..... Magnums ought to be illegal, given how dangerous they are (if a .44 bullet misses you, the shockwave it sends out is so powerful that it will still break down tissue in your muscles).....


Full and absolute bullsh*t.

If a live round brushes or grazes you you'll get a bad burn. If the round actually hits you, depending on where and what your body build is, then yes you're going to be hurting.


Here's a good article for you to read in this link:

Breaking the Myth of One-Shot Stops (Scroll down to the part where you see the revolver firing)

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

[TFatseas]

Like I said, let's also legalize RPGs and grenades.
They are.;)

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html

Goes though the BATFE as a destructive device.

They are legal in the same way that people can own howitzers and AT-guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g83j0JZ_Ld4&NR=1

ETA: Bunch of class III goodness here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z05UF_pTYAE&feature=related

[Stealth Hunter]

..... Magnums ought to be illegal, given how dangerous they are (if a .44 bullet misses you, the shockwave it sends out is so powerful that it will still break down tissue in your muscles).....


Full and absolute bullsh*t.

If a live round brushes or grazes you you'll get a bad burn. If the round actually hits you, depending on where and what your body build is, then yes you're going to be hurting.


Here's a good article for you to read in this link:

Breaking the Myth of One-Shot Stops (Scroll down to the part where you see the revolver firing)

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

Sorry, I meant a .454 bullet for the magnum, the ones that Taurus Raging Bull's use.

[Stealth Hunter]

Like I said, let's also legalize RPGs and grenades.
They are.;)

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html

Goes though the BATFE as a destructive device.

They are legal in the same way that people can own howitzers and AT-guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g83j0JZ_Ld4&NR=1

ETA: Bunch of class III goodness here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z05UF_pTYAE&feature=related

:huh:

I have lost all faith in the judgement of our government.

Why the HELL would you let a citizen own a howitzer?! JESUS. :nope:

[Yahoshua]

With respect to all, I as a law-abiding citizen want to have any type of firearm I desire. The real topic of all this talk is freedom of choice--or lack of it. When you get into an area where the goverment chooses for you than you have in effect lost that freedom.

It seems here that most of you support firearm ownership but some of you want exceptions as to what type should be allowed. This IMO is a critical error. Back when the Bill of Rights was adopted the smooth-bore musket was the weapon of it's time. There was never a restriction that allowed only some to have bows and arrows instead.

I understand your position and respect that. However, for an example lets use an AR-15. One with a 30 round magazine. the 5.56 or .223 is not a great round when hunting deer. Terrible for bird and laughable against bear. So hunting is not it's calling in life.

The 5.56 or .223 is pretty good against human targets. Low recoil lets you put multiple rounds on target accurately enough in quick time. It penetrates body armor very well.

The problem is. I have encountered quite a few citizens armed with these military style weapons. None of which were the law abidding types. Hard to sit at the movies with one strapped on your back. It's not a good choice for home protection unless you live by yourself.

I'm all for concealed carry. I firmly believe that a lot of street crime would go down. But you cannot carry an "assault" rifle concealed.

Thanks for allowing me to share.

If you use good hunting ammo the .223 is a great round for small deer and varmints (depredation of coyotes, and deer weighing in the under 100 lb. range).

But even then, over 100 meters the .223 is NOT a good anti-personnel round. Under 100 meters with USGI ammo the modern .223 military bullet is designed to fragment o a soft target or penetrate light body armor.

Beyond 100 meter the.223 doesn't fragment and just makes small pencil holes, there have been many accounts of repeatedly engaging an armed individual with repeated hits but no apparrent reaction until several minutes later after the firefight has ended.

Even then, you have to consider that most non-law-abiding perps who use firearms do so with handguns and at close range. For most of them they're only practice enough to be accurate enough to hit you with a "spray and pray" method of fire.

[Yahoshua]

Seriously people. A large shot can still go through houses. What do you need an assault rifle for? You are not facing an army of crooks and if you did it would be close quarters where a shotgun or a pistol will do far more good.

As for that crap that the ban is because the gov is somehow afraid we will rebel with them. I gurandamntee you that anyone with even half a brain is NOT going to bring an AK to a fight. They will bring their deadly rifles and scopes with large bullets that can tear through a tree like it is nothing, Shotguns with buckshot that can do insane damage at close range, And deadly powerful pistols.


People will use rocks and sharp pointy sticks if they have to.

If I have a choice between an AK and an M16 I take the AK anyday. It is the most reliable firearm on the face of the planet.

As far as "deadly rifles and scopes" most people who own deer rifles only dust them off once a year to go deer hunting. Shotguns are nasty buggers to be on the receiving end even if it's just birdshot (which it takes alot of to kill you btw).

You're over-reacting to the very idea of firearms and it sounds like you're very insecure when you yourself are afraid of firearms but cant seem to understand why others enjoy having and using them.

[Blacklight]

I'm sorry but assualt weapons SHOULD be banned from public use. I mean reall. There's NOT ONE reason that the average joe public needs to have a machine gun !

[Yahoshua]

Like I said, let's also legalize RPGs and grenades.
They are.;)

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html

Goes though the BATFE as a destructive device.

They are legal in the same way that people can own howitzers and AT-guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g83j0JZ_Ld4&NR=1

ETA: Bunch of class III goodness here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z05UF_pTYAE&feature=related

:huh:

I have lost all faith in the judgement of our government.

Why the HELL would you let a citizen own a howitzer?! JESUS. :nope:




Did the individuals abuse their right to own these objects and firearms in anyway?

Were they unsafe in their handling/ operation of these devices?

Or spouting rhetoric of committing a terroristic act upon unsuspecting and random citizens?


If not then what exactly is your problem here? These are people who are enjoying themselves with a good time for an experience they'll try maybe 2 or 3 times in their entire life, never being able to own or touch one again!!

[Yahoshua]

I'm sorry but assualt weapons SHOULD be banned from public use. I mean reall. There's NOT ONE reason that the average joe public needs to have a machine gun !


Okay then. If "Assault Weapons" are to be banned, how are you going to do so in a reasonable fashion?

If you say they should be restricted to Military and LE only, then what about the Citizen Militia? Everyone in the U.S. that is between the ages of 18 and 60 is subject to being drafted by the state to form a militia corps.

The militia in the days of the early post-colonial British Government had a small standing army with most communities and towns having their own militia of common citizens. Those militiamen were required to provide their own arms and clothing that were of comparable quality and caliber measurement (Ranging from .58 caliber to .70 caliber) and having at least 20 to 50 balls of ammunition and with enough powder to fire those projectiles.

Applying this template today (as it is framed in the 2nd amendment and was practiced in early pre/post-colonial days), this would mean that everyone who is subject to the militia draft must own: one m-16, one Beretta M92, have a uniform, at least 200 rounds of rifle ammunition, 50 rounds of pistol ammunition, have a rucksack, kevlar helmet, belt rig, and plate carrier vest in order to adequately report for duty at least once per year for training and marksmanship qualifications.

In effect, this would create the mirror image of the protocols the Swiss already have.



But wait, there's more:

There's such a thing as the organized (state) militia, and the un-organized (irregular) militia.

How then do you diffrentiate between the two without abrogating the 2nd amendment?

[Stealth Hunter]

If not then what exactly is your problem here?

Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe it's the fact that IT'S A HOWITZER. Do you not see the problem with this? Let me make it simple: A civilian is running around with a long-range artillery piece that can destroy a building with no problem. NOW do you understand? What would happen if that thing misfired at a public demonstration? Hmm? What if the shell trajectory was off and caused the shell to land in a town or in a camping area?

Too many risks, and there's no need in it.

These are people who are enjoying themselves with a good time for an experience they'll try maybe 2 or 3 times in their entire life, never being able to own or touch one again!!

Yeah, all good and fair, but like I said, there's too much that could go wrong, and does go wrong. If you keep these things within the public, then accidents are going to happen; very costly accidents. You don't need an RPG or a howitzer, and if you want to see one, go to a museum.

These things are dangerous, but I can tell you I'd rather have a gun incident than an explosives incident.

[Yahoshua]

As I said:

Responsible handling

This means:


Being aware of where the shell is going to land and whether there are any individuals that SHOULDN'T be there
Being safe with the device and ensuring it is well kept and maintained
Ensuring that the ammunition in use is quality-made and that the production lot has no known problems
Hearing and eye protection are worn at all times and that no individuals are near the blast zone, recoil area, or the impact zone.All of the above were followed and in order to even OWN the device the individual cannot even have an arrest record or more than a few(?) parking tickets!!

You absolutely have to be a UPSTANDING law-abiding citizen to get one of these items and have a spotless record.

The individual in question is NOT dangerous to anybody unless they were to abuse their rights which I seriously doubt.

[Captain Vlad]

Yeah, all good and fair, but like I said, there's too much that could go wrong, and does go wrong.

I have several weapons in my house. None are anywhere near as likely to kill me or anyone else as the multi-ton metal machine I drive to work every day. Come to think of it, none are as likely to kill me as my step ladder.

If we start restricting everyone based on what could go wrong, pretty soon no one will be allowed to do anything. I'll take freedom over safety, myself, or at least a balance of the two that favors freedom.

[Yahoshua]

Besides, if you're concerned about "what could go wrong....." there's plenty of Darwin Awards that DON'T involve firearms.

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm sorry but assualt weapons SHOULD be banned from public use. I mean reall. There's NOT ONE reason that the average joe public needs to have a machine gun !


Okay then. If "Assault Weapons" are to be banned, how are you going to do so in a reasonable fashion?

If you say they should be restricted to Military and LE only, then what about the Citizen Militia? Everyone in the U.S. that is between the ages of 18 and 60 is subject to being drafted by the state to form a militia corps.

What do you mean "in a reasonable fashion"? You approve a law that states assault firearms are illegal, you order anyone in possession of one to hand it over to their local police department, you file reports on the owners of the guns (for safe keeping), and you call it a day. If they refuse to hand their M16 or AK-74 over, you arrest them because they are disobeying the law.

The United States Military has plenty of weapons to go around. You don't need your own gun. I'd rather have an M4 than grandfather's 60 year old MP40.

The militia in the days of the early post-colonial British Government had a small standing army with most communities and towns having their own militia of common citizens. Those militiamen were required to provide their own arms and clothing that were of comparable quality and caliber measurement (Ranging from .58 caliber to .70 caliber) and having at least 20 to 50 balls of ammunition and with enough powder to fire those projectiles.

The difference being it isn't 1776 and you're not a colonist or a loyalist. Great Britain doesn't own us, we have a strong military with automatic weapons and elite training, and the country hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812.

Applying this template today (as it is framed in the 2nd amendment and was practiced in early pre/post-colonial days), this would mean that everyone who is subject to the militia draft must own: one m-16, one Beretta M92, have a uniform, at least 200 rounds of rifle ammunition, 50 rounds of pistol ammunition, have a rucksack, kevlar helmet, belt rig, and plate carrier vest in order to adequately report for duty at least once per year for training and marksmanship qualifications.

In effect, this would create the mirror image of the protocols the Swiss already have.

Nice idea, but we're not the Swiss, and we're not living under the same conditions as the people of colonial America were. We have the army for a reason. We have the air force for a reason. We have the navy for a reason. We have the marines for a reason. If we were invaded, the last thing we would need is a disorganized rabble of people running around with explosives and automatic weapons. Let the guys who are fresh out of boot camp with the training and supplies necessary deal with it.

This isn't Red Dawn, you're not Patrick Swayze, and don't plan on us being invaded anytime soon.

But wait, there's more:

There's such a thing as the organized (state) militia, and the un-organized (irregular) militia.

How then do you diffrentiate between the two without abrogating the 2nd amendment?

I think the more important question is why do we even need a militia? Like I said, we have a military. They have the training, they have the qualifications, they have the guns. It's their job, not ours. And if worst comes to worst, then yeah, pick up a gun. Fire away. But we don't need automatic guns, we don't need howitzers, and we don't need RPGs. Bolt-action rifles, molotov cocktails, and .38s are just as capable as killing as anything else.

[Stealth Hunter]

As I said:

Responsible handling

This means:


Being aware of where the shell is going to land and whether there are any individuals that SHOULDN'T be there
Being safe with the device and ensuring it is well kept and maintained
Ensuring that the ammunition in use is quality-made and that the production lot has no known problems
Hearing and eye protection are worn at all times and that no individuals are near the blast zone, recoil area, or the impact zone.All of the above were followed and in order to even OWN the device the individual cannot even have an arrest record or more than a few(?) parking tickets!!

You absolutely have to be a UPSTANDING law-abiding citizen to get one of these items and have a spotless record.

The individual in question is NOT dangerous to anybody unless they were to abuse their rights which I seriously doubt.

Regardless of all the precautions and safety measures you take, ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN. Get that through your head.

[Stealth Hunter]

Besides, if you're concerned about "what could go wrong....." there's plenty of Darwin Awards that DON'T involve firearms.

True, but firearms you can control; you can't control falling off a ladder or having a car wreck.

[Stealth Hunter]

If we start restricting everyone based on what could go wrong, pretty soon no one will be allowed to do anything. I'll take freedom over safety, myself, or at least a balance of the two that favors freedom.

That's complete bulls**t. You've still got plenty of freedom. Seriously, YOU DO NOT NEED A ****ING RPG, GRENADE, OR HOWITZER. A .38 Special or a .308 Sprinfield is just as deadly.

[Captain Vlad]

Regardless of all the precautions and safety measures you take, ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN. Get that through your head.

They happen every day, to thousands of people.

Very few of these accidents, relatively speaking, involve a firearm in any way. Since most legally obtained weapons (even, or when you get right down to it, especially, howitzers) are never used against another person, I think it's safe to say that guns aren't much of an issue when it comes to general safety.

You disagree...but you're stating an opinion that isn't backed up by fact.

[August]

What do you mean "in a reasonable fashion"? You approve a law that states assault firearms are illegal, you order anyone in possession of one to hand it over to their local police department, you file reports on the owners of the guns (for safe keeping), and you call it a day. If they refuse to hand their M16 or AK-74 over, you arrest them because they are disobeying the law.

So in one fell swoop you confiscate peoples legally obtained private property and turn thousands of honest people into criminals because they don't feel like surrendering their constitutional rights to the likes of you? Hell why not just drag us all out of our houses and shoot us in our front yards. Problem solved right?

[Stealth Hunter]

Regardless of all the precautions and safety measures you take, ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN. Get that through your head.

They happen every day, to thousands of people.

Very few of these accidents, relatively speaking, involve a firearm in any way. Since most legally obtained weapons (even, or when you get right down to it, especially, howitzers) are never used against another person, I think it's safe to say that guns aren't much of an issue when it comes to general safety.

You disagree...but you're stating an opinion that isn't backed up by fact.

Firearm related incidents is what I was referring to.

And you disagree, but, likewise, no opinion constitutes a fact.

[Captain Vlad]

That's complete bulls**t. You've still got plenty of freedom. Seriously, YOU DO NOT NEED A ****ING RPG, GRENADE, OR HOWITZER. A .38 Special or a .308 Sprinfield is just as deadly.

Actually, it's not complete bull****, it's a fact that disarms your worries about gun safety. You have no problems with items that kill far more people than guns, yet advocate restrictions on guns instead of these other items. This is a hypocritical argument, and can therefore be safely discarded.

[Stealth Hunter]

What do you mean "in a reasonable fashion"? You approve a law that states assault firearms are illegal, you order anyone in possession of one to hand it over to their local police department, you file reports on the owners of the guns (for safe keeping), and you call it a day. If they refuse to hand their M16 or AK-74 over, you arrest them because they are disobeying the law.

So in one fell swoop you confiscate peoples legally obtained private property and turn thousands of honest people into criminals because they don't feel like surrendering their constitutional rights to the likes of you? Hell why not just drag us all out of our houses and shoot us in our front yards. Problem solved right?

You're not confiscating anything. The people are bound, by law, to hand over any automatic weapons. They're doing it on the own. Not doing it is a violation of the law...

How is making them hand over an automatic weapon going to turn them all into criminals? Explain how you arrived at that answer.

You're not surrendering anything. You can still have guns, you just can't have the more destructive ones. You can still own a .308 Springfield; you just can't own an M14. You can still own a Colt .45; you just can't own a machine pistol.

And quit overexaggerating to try to make your point seem honorable. You know, as well as I do, that regular citizens like me and you don't need access to M60s, SAW shotguns, or LAW rocket launchers. Yeah, it would be fun to own one, but we don't need one.

[Stealth Hunter]

That's complete bulls**t. You've still got plenty of freedom. Seriously, YOU DO NOT NEED A ****ING RPG, GRENADE, OR HOWITZER. A .38 Special or a .308 Sprinfield is just as deadly.

Actually, it's not complete bull****, it's a fact that disarms your worries about gun safety. You have no problems with items that kill far more people than guns, yet advocate restrictions on guns instead of these other items. This is a hypocritical argument, and can therefore be safely discarded.

:rotfl:

You know the difference between an M60 and a .22 Winchester, Vlad? An M60 fires over 550 rounds per minute. A .22 has a barrel that holds 15 bullets that have to be loaded one at a time. Now, which one is more deadly?

[Captain Vlad]

You know the difference between an M60 and a .22 Winchester, Vlad? An M60 fires over 550 rounds per minute. A .22 has a barrel that holds 15 bullets that have to be loaded one at a time. Now, which one is more deadly?
That depends, almost entirely, on the person holding the weapon.

Edit: Oh, and you avoided my point once again. How many people did legally obtained M-60's kill last year? Now how many got electrocuted by a hair dryer?

[Stealth Hunter]

Uh huh.

Let me rephrase it then. Which one do YOU think is more deadly?

[Yahoshua]

Smile.


So only LE and the military should have guns because they're somehow supermen whenever they jump into their uniforms making these individuals infinitely superior and smarter to the average citizen correct?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/AssumedSup.jpg

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/index.jpg



And much of what you're saying amounts to nothing more than the wholesale institution of a police state. Similar to Venezuela, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Peoples Republic of China, Sudan, South Africa (most of us remember apartheid right?), Saddam Husseins' Iraq, the Taliban, and others.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/lang.jpg


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Whywearmourselves.jpg

[Stealth Hunter]

Edit: Oh, and you avoided my point once again. How many people did legally obtained M-60's kill last year? Now how many got electrocuted by a hair dryer?

Actually, I didn't avoid anything. I was pointing out that the factor of how deadly a weapon is should be taken into account when deciding on which ones to ban.

And I actually don't know the statistics on that. Would you kindly pull some up for me?

[Yahoshua]

And need I remind you how restrictions on firearms began in the United States?

It was to prevent the black populace from owning firearms much like how the Jim Crow laws prevented many blacks from voting and getting jobs.

[Stealth Hunter]

So only LE and the military should have guns because they're somehow supermen whenever they jump into their uniforms making these individuals infinitely superior and smarter to the average citizen correct?

Now you're putting words into my mouth. But seriously, a soldier is more qualified to operate one of these guns than a civilian, especially since it is the soldier who uses them and trains with them on a day to day basis.

[Stealth Hunter]

And need I remind you how restrictions on firearms began in the United States?

It was to prevent the black populace from owning firearms much like how the Jim Crow laws prevented many blacks from voting and getting jobs.

Yes, yes. The NRA and the KKK were closely linked at a time.

[Captain Vlad]

[
I was pointing out that the factor of how deadly a weapon is should be taken into account when deciding on which ones to ban.
And I was pointing out that the 'deadliness' of the weapon, in terms of it's raw capability, is kind of a moot point in most cases.

And I actually don't know the statistics on that. Would you kindly pull some up for me?
Nope. Had this argument one too many times, done the legwork for too many gun control advocates, and despite the numbers supporting the pro-gun side, it never convinces anyone. Hence: Look 'em up yourself.

To the M-60 vs .22 question: In many cases the .22, properly employed, may be deadlier than the M-60. In terms of sheer firepower, the M-60 is more impressive, of course...but in many cases it wouldn't be the ideal weapon.

In other words: deadliness is situational. Sure, an M-60 is more effective when you can employ one (assuming the bitch doesn't jam on you...) openly, but which would be more effective at, say, murdering your neighbor and getting away with it?

[August]

You're not confiscating anything. The people are bound, by law, to hand over any automatic weapons. They're doing it on the own. Not doing it is a violation of the law...

How is making them hand over an automatic weapon going to turn them all into criminals? Explain how you arrived at that answer.

You're not surrendering anything. You can still have guns, you just can't have the more destructive ones. You can still own a .308 Springfield; you just can't own an M14. You can still own a Colt .45; you just can't own a machine pistol.

And quit overexaggerating to try to make your point seem honorable. You know, as well as I do, that regular citizens like me and you don't need access to M60s, SAW shotguns, or LAW rocket launchers. Yeah, it would be fun to own one, but we don't need one.

SH, please quit trying to confuse the issue. LAW rocket launchers, howitzers, cannons and nuclear weapons have NOTHING to do with automatic firearms.

Here's a dose of reality for you. In the 74 odd years that they have been regulated there has been only one murder proven to have been committed with a legally owned automatic firearm.

Once in almost 3 quarters of a century and even in that case the perpetrator was a serving police officer who could just have easily committed his crime with his issue sidearm. So what is your justification for confiscating (and ordering people to turn over their property or be arrested IS a confiscation) these weapons?

And before you answer, your argument over what we "need" or don't need is immaterial. Most people don't "need" the right to free speech or the right to peaceably assemble either. That does not mean you can just outlaw a right specifically mentioned in the constitution.

[TFatseas]

Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.) http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

So if these so called "Assault Weapons" are so dangerous, how come almost no crime is committed with them?

And gun crime has fallen after the expiration of the AWB in 2004.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
Same goes with full-auto weapons.
(Ironic he was a cop)

[Yahoshua]

So only LE and the military should have guns because they're somehow supermen whenever they jump into their uniforms making these individuals infinitely superior and smarter to the average citizen correct?

Now you're putting words into my mouth. But seriously, a soldier is more qualified to operate one of these guns than a civilian, especially since it is the soldier who uses them and trains with them on a day to day basis.

Not all troopers always train with the M92 and qualify with it, does that mean he's still superior to the civilian that has more intimate knowledge, trains far more often and has better trained accuracy with the M92 than the trooper himself?

Can the same be said for a trooper who has an allotment of ammunition for training to qualify witht eh M16 as opposed to the citizen with a semi-auto AR15 that can train with as much ammunition as he can purchase and participates in rifle matches once a month as opposed to the annually qualifying trooper?

Your reasoning has alot of flaws and yes, you are insinuating and have already stated that military personnell/LE officers are "superior" simply because they received some verbal instruction and maybe a few hours of live-fire training?

Some units train enormous amounts of hours and they are very proficient with their weapons and knowledge of them. For other units though, the ones that stay in the rear and handle logistics, most of them have never moved into weapoins training beyond the 2 weeks of familiarization at boot camp. As for the average trooper, hw only handles his rifle when he has to, not because he wants to be familiar with it.

Consequently I've also seen lots of officers come to the range I work at and qualify.

Their accuracy and arms training sucks.

They are in no way superior to me in terms of accuracy, arms familiarization or live-fire training for the one and simple fact that Law Enforcement Officers treat their live-fire qualification exams as a CHORE and not as an event that they should be dedicating themselves to training for.

[Yahoshua]

And need I remind you how restrictions on firearms began in the United States?

It was to prevent the black populace from owning firearms much like how the Jim Crow laws prevented many blacks from voting and getting jobs.

Yes, yes. The NRA and the KKK were closely linked at a time.

Really? Didn't know that. Not that it matters to me anyway.

As far as I'm concerned the NRA is a worthless sack of s**t that has accomplished virtually nothing for the rights of gun-owners.

[Stealth Hunter]

You're not confiscating anything. The people are bound, by law, to hand over any automatic weapons. They're doing it on the own. Not doing it is a violation of the law...

How is making them hand over an automatic weapon going to turn them all into criminals? Explain how you arrived at that answer.

You're not surrendering anything. You can still have guns, you just can't have the more destructive ones. You can still own a .308 Springfield; you just can't own an M14. You can still own a Colt .45; you just can't own a machine pistol.

And quit overexaggerating to try to make your point seem honorable. You know, as well as I do, that regular citizens like me and you don't need access to M60s, SAW shotguns, or LAW rocket launchers. Yeah, it would be fun to own one, but we don't need one.

SH, please quit trying to confuse the issue. LAW rocket launchers, howitzers, cannons and nuclear weapons have NOTHING to do with automatic firearms.

Here's a dose of reality for you. In the 74 odd years that they have been regulated there has been only one murder proven to have been committed with a legally owned automatic firearm.

Once in almost 3 quarters of a century and even in that case the perpetrator was a serving police officer who could just have easily committed his crime with his issue sidearm. So what is your justification for confiscating (and ordering people to turn over their property or be arrested IS a confiscation) these weapons?

And before you answer, your argument over what we "need" or don't need is immaterial. Most people don't "need" the right to free speech or the right to peaceably assemble either. That does not mean you can just outlaw a right specifically mentioned in the constitution.

I'm not confusing anything. The fact that a citizen has the right to own an automatic firearm and a howitzer go hand in hand. Why? Because both are extremely deadly. I think you should be able to own firearms, but you have to have a limit.

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.

The difference between a cop and a citizen is this: qualifications. A cop is employed in the government to protect and serve. He is expected to be a responsible official of the law. A citizen is... well, not there to do anything for the law, other than live by the law. My justification for confiscating AUTOMATIC FIREARMS is this: they're more dangerous than your average gun. People don't need them, so what is to be missed? They can still have pistols and rifles, just not machine guns and machine pistols.

You would not be drastically changing anything, either. You would still allow people to have guns, just not automatic ones.

[Stealth Hunter]

And need I remind you how restrictions on firearms began in the United States?

It was to prevent the black populace from owning firearms much like how the Jim Crow laws prevented many blacks from voting and getting jobs.

Yes, yes. The NRA and the KKK were closely linked at a time.

Really? Didn't know that. Not that it matters to me anyway.

As far as I'm concerned the NRA is a worthless sack of s**t that has accomplished virtually nothing for the rights of gun-owners.

One of the founders of the NRA was actually in the KKK at a time (William Church).

Lol, Charlton Heston with his musket...

THEY CAN TAKE MY GUN FROM ME WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!

Charlie... you only had one shot and were over 70 years old...:smug:

[August]

I suppose you have a source for that claim.

See subsequent posts to my last one.

Yes, yes. The NRA and the KKK were closely linked at a time.

Same question right back to you. Note: a Mikey Moore propaganda movie is not a valid source.

[August]

One of the founders of the NRA was actually in the KKK at a time (William Church).
I have to call bovine feces to that. William Church was a major in the union army. Hardly material for membership in an organization made up of former confederate soldiers...

[TFatseas]

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.
What? You realize a Full-Auto M16, AK-47 whatever hasn't been manufactured for civilians since the 86 '"ban". And a AR-15 you buy over a gun counter does not have a FA switch. Or the ability.

Full auto is tightly regulated.

ETA: I think your confusing an "Assault Weapon" with a Assault rifle.

[Stealth Hunter]

When the KKK became classified as an illegal terrorist organization in 1871, the NRA was founded. Soon thereafter, Congress passed one of the first gun laws of the era, making it illegal for any negro to own one. Church himself was not fond of blacks (which wasn't uncommon for the time), although he was much more vocal about it, which lead some to suggest that he had been a member of the Klu Klux Klan from 1866 to 1870 (1870 being the year that the Klan began to lose power).

Found a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/National-Rifle-Association-Media-Communications/dp/0820451223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226885857&sr=1-1

[Stealth Hunter]

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.
What? You realize a Full-Auto M16, AK-47 whatever hasn't been manufactured for civilians since the 86 '"ban". And a AR-15 you buy over a gun counter does not have a FA switch. Or the ability.

Full auto is tightly regulated.

Guns like the AK-47 have different firing modes, though (auto, burst, and semi), and people are still able to get their hands on them (like this guy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c

[Stealth Hunter]

One of the founders of the NRA was actually in the KKK at a time (William Church).
I have to call bovine feces to that. William Church was a major in the union army. Hardly material for membership in an organization made up of former confederate soldiers...

My source says Lt. Colonel in the Virginia Volunteers.

[TFatseas]

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.
What? You realize a Full-Auto M16, AK-47 whatever hasn't been manufactured for civilians since the 86 '"ban". And a AR-15 you buy over a gun counter does not have a FA switch. Or the ability.

Full auto is tightly regulated.
Guns like the AK-47 have different firing modes, though (auto, burst, and semi), and people are still able to get their hands on them (like this guy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
Yes I know that. But the "assault weapon" that you get over your average gun counter does not.

And you do realize getting a FA weapon isn't exactly easy right?

Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle), which has an established technical definition.
Lifted off of wiki regarding "assault weapons".

[Captain Vlad]

William Church was a Captain in the United States Volunteers, later breveted to Major and Lt. Colonel. He served for one year.

[August]

My source says Lt. Colonel in the Virginia Volunteers.

Then it's a different guy. NRA founders William Church and George Wingate were a union officers and the NRA was formed in New York (hardly KKK territory) .

Heres the story from the NRA themselves:

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church. After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.
An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.


http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx

[Yahoshua]

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.
What? You realize a Full-Auto M16, AK-47 whatever hasn't been manufactured for civilians since the 86 '"ban". And a AR-15 you buy over a gun counter does not have a FA switch. Or the ability.

Full auto is tightly regulated.

Guns like the AK-47 have different firing modes, though (auto, burst, and semi), and people are still able to get their hands on them (like this guy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c


Just an fyi sidenote for the AK rifles.

AKs' do not have selective fire, it is either FA or on safe. There is no semi-switch for the AK.

[1480]

One of my guns is an AR-15 made by colt. It has a 20 inch barrel and I use a 20 round mag instead of a 30. It is not a "hunting rifle" as you say although it can be used against small varmits. Excellent rifle out to 300 yards. As I own a small farm it also can be used as a self-defence weapon. I just choose to have it as I like the look and feel of it.

I don't hunt anymore, haven't in over 20 years but I enjoy target shooting up to 500 yards. This whole gun control thing really has nothing to do with hunting anyway as some may think.

It is about protection from those who would harm you or your family. Many have died from the hands of thugs who either had a gun or simply out numbered them. You may not need a AR-15 to protect yourself but I want the choice to have one.

It is most important to never allow yourself to loose the ability to choose, that freedom of choice we do have. Once lost you will never ever get it back.

Sure. In your situation, that is an ideal weapon. I should have prefaced my statement since I live in the city and my little slice of heaven is 120' x 45'. An AR-15 would not be so good.

I should not have jumped the gun (no pun) on the military style rifle, hunting argument. It's refreshing to hear honesty about these weapons.

I am a bit predjudiced once it comes to these weapons and urban environments. They do not mix well.

Someone mentioned the .22 LR. It is true that this round kills more than any other caliber but the reasons are: 1. Most readily available cartridge in the world. 2. They tend to become pinballs inside of a body, causing all kinds of internal damage.


I've been asked by many law abidding citizens (always after they have been burglarized) what would I recommend for home protection. .45 always comes out of my mouth, for some silly reason.

[1480]

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.
What? You realize a Full-Auto M16, AK-47 whatever hasn't been manufactured for civilians since the 86 '"ban". And a AR-15 you buy over a gun counter does not have a FA switch. Or the ability.

Full auto is tightly regulated.

Guns like the AK-47 have different firing modes, though (auto, burst, and semi), and people are still able to get their hands on them (like this guy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c


Just an fyi sidenote for the AK rifles.

AKs' do not have selective fire, it is either FA or on safe. There is no semi-switch for the AK.

It's the SKS that is the semi auto version.

[1480]

They are in no way superior to me in terms of accuracy, arms familiarization or live-fire training for the one and simple fact that Law Enforcement Officers treat their live-fire qualification exams as a CHORE and not as an event that they should be dedicating themselves to training for.

Yahoshua, not all of us treat it as a chore. I actually enjoy shooting and being more than proficient with the weapon that has saved my life on one occasion.

I think the big to-do here (and I am part of the problem) is this: If we allow citizens to carry weapons should they not qualify every year with said weapon? Officers have to at least qualify once a year if not more, and I believe the servicemen do also.

[breadcatcher101]

Look, about AK's, real ones--ones used on the battlefields--can fire full-auto or semi-auto. Until 1986 you could buy one such as this. After that you had to buy one that was made before that date if you wanted one with select fire.

The AK's sold today are semi-auto only. The original receivers were destroyed and semi-auto receivers were made for them and they were assembled using the parts from the AK--without the full-auto parts, of course.

[Captain Vlad]

I think the big to-do here (and I am part of the problem) is this: If we allow citizens to carry weapons should they not qualify every year with said weapon? Officers have to at least qualify once a year if not more, and I believe the servicemen do also.

If I read my state law in OK correctly, for a concealed weapon permit, you DO have to recert every year, much like a police officer. This makes sense to me, as handguns are the weapons most commonly carried 'in public', and you want anyone walking around in full view of lots of people to be familiar with it's use and the safety precautions one must take with a gun.

With weapons confined, largely, to home or range use...I don't feel this is necessary. I'm biased here; I grew up around guns and have to remind myself that not everyone is given competent instruction in their use at age five the way I was.

For civillian ownership of a fully-automatic weapon, I think the requirements (and the cost) are already strict enough.

[Yahoshua]

They are in no way superior to me in terms of accuracy, arms familiarization or live-fire training for the one and simple fact that Law Enforcement Officers treat their live-fire qualification exams as a CHORE and not as an event that they should be dedicating themselves to training for.

Yahoshua, not all of us treat it as a chore. I actually enjoy shooting and being more than proficient with the weapon that has saved my life on one occasion.

I think the big to-do here (and I am part of the problem) is this: If we allow citizens to carry weapons should they not qualify every year with said weapon? Officers have to at least qualify once a year if not more, and I believe the servicemen do also.


You're an exception for the norm of Houston Police Dept. Officers. (but glad to hear it)


As far as the "Citizen Qualification Testing" I have personally had my own tug-of-war about it and although the principle at heart is a good cause, it simply is a mechanism that can be too easily abused by officials to deny citizens their right to keep and bear arms. Which it is exactly that, a right.

Regardless of my or your opinions and how well-formed and intented they may be, such things are unenforceable, unworkable, unpopular, and serve to cause a sharp division between citizen and the elected government than it wopuld be of any help.

Rather than try and force people through regulation to be responsible and proficient, it's far better to attract them with competitive matches, fun events, and postive education towards the public at large.

That, I believe, will produce far better and favorable results than the other ideas I'd mulled over before.

[1480]

They are in no way superior to me in terms of accuracy, arms familiarization or live-fire training for the one and simple fact that Law Enforcement Officers treat their live-fire qualification exams as a CHORE and not as an event that they should be dedicating themselves to training for.

Yahoshua, not all of us treat it as a chore. I actually enjoy shooting and being more than proficient with the weapon that has saved my life on one occasion.

I think the big to-do here (and I am part of the problem) is this: If we allow citizens to carry weapons should they not qualify every year with said weapon? Officers have to at least qualify once a year if not more, and I believe the servicemen do also.


You're an exception for the norm of Houston Police Dept. Officers. (but glad to hear it)


As far as the "Citizen Qualification Testing" I have personally had my own tug-of-war about it and although the principle at heart is a good cause, it simply is a mechanism that can be too easily abused by officials to deny citizens their right to keep and bear arms. Which it is exactly that, a right.

Regardless of my or your opinions and how well-formed and intented they may be, such things are unenforceable, unworkable, unpopular, and serve to cause a sharp division between citizen and the elected government than it wopuld be of any help.

Rather than try and force people through regulation to be responsible and proficient, it's far better to attract them with competitive matches, fun events, and postive education towards the public at large.

That, I believe, will produce far better and favorable results than the other ideas I'd mulled over before.

Yes and no. I believe the qualification part would be for those who intend to carry concealed. I would hate to have someone who does not know the difference btn the mag release and the safety carrying on the public way. For your home or business, whatever you can afford.

This is more of a safety issue than restriction upon rights. That is how I see it. I maybe misguided on my thoughts but I don't see me being swayed otherwise.

[Sailor Steve]

When the KKK became classified as an illegal terrorist organization in 1871, the NRA was founded. Soon thereafter, Congress passed one of the first gun laws of the era, making it illegal for any negro to own one.
Exactly what law was that? I'm aware of the Mississippi laws, and other southern state's laws, which the 14th Amendment was drafted to combat. But a Federal law, passed by congress? Please enlighten me.

[Stealth Hunter]

Here's a little more on it:

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140019513&sec_id=140000845

[August]

I still see no corellation between the NRA and the KKK SH.

[Stealth Hunter]

The correlation was supposedly between Church and the KKK. After doing more research on Mr. Church, I have likewise come to the agreement that he was not affiliated with the KKK (let alone that he was part of the Virginia Volunteers).

[August]

The correlation was supposedly between Church and the KKK. After doing more research on Mr. Church, I have likewise come to the agreement that he was not affiliated with the KKK (let alone that he was part of the Virginia Volunteers).

:up:

[1480]

Here's a little more on it:

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140019513&sec_id=140000845

I read the article twice and may be missing something. There were never any laws passed by the federal government that prohibited negros from possessing firearms. In fact they passed acts that prohibited states from enacting or enforcing these "black codes." The 14th amendment solidified this.

[Sailor Steve]

Here's a little more on it:

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140019513&sec_id=140000845

I read the article twice and may be missing something. There were never any laws passed by the federal government that prohibited negros from possessing firearms. In fact they passed acts that prohibited states from enacting or enforcing these "black codes." The 14th amendment solidified this.
I just now read it, and got the same thing. It was the states that tried to do it, and congress only passed laws overriding the state laws.

[August]

If the Democrats started supporting RKBA they would pull a lot of voters away from the Republicans.

[nikimcbee]

There's a place you can buy ammo online? Do you remeber any names? One place had it for pretty cheap, but I don't remember the name.:oops:

I found it!
...the answer to my question!
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM636-5.html

[Tchocky]

I don't really see guns coming up as an issue over the next year or so.
It's totally at odds with the current political atmosphere, tackling a recession, climate change, somehow resolving 2 wars at once.
Plus, didn't the Supreme Court overturn that DC ban only a year or so ago? THat alone should knock this issue into cold stoarage for at least another Presidential/Congressional term.

[Morts]

what would you even need an assault weapon for ?
doesnt a shutgun/pistol defend your house well enough ? or do you have the splatter the person up on the wall ?

[August]

what would you even need an assault weapon for ?
doesnt a shutgun/pistol defend your house well enough ? or do you have the splatter the person up on the wall ?

A shotgun would do way more damage than a couple rounds from a semi-auto.

[Morts]

yeah, but atleast you know that after you hit the thief with the shotgun...the rounds (or whatever) wont continue out and hit something else..or incase you miss...the rounds wont go through the wall

[Sailor Steve]

I found it!
...the answer to my question!
I'm so glad there are people like you on this forum who are willing to provide the answers to people with questions like yours. If you need anything else, just ask. I'm sure you'll be glad to help.

[August]

yeah, but atleast you know that after you hit the thief with the shotgun...the rounds (or whatever) wont continue out and hit something else..or incase you miss...the rounds wont go through the wall

Well the point you were making was that a semi auto rifle would do a lot more damage than a shotgun and that just isn't true.

As for penetrating walls that all depends on the walls construction. I wouldn't bet on a shotgun blast not busting through a sheetrock wall and there are special non penetrating rounds for just about any caliber rifle nowadays.

Personally I favor the shotgun for home defense though because nothing says "git" to an intruder quite like a pump racking a round in the chamber.

[Bewolf]

This discussion is odd. The premise out there is the following. If the government all of a sudden becomes evil, real men have guns to fight it.

Two problems with that.

1. The obvious one. The military laughs about private guns. They even laugh about big private guns. Why? Apart from the equipment question (tanks, jets, missles etc vs. your average Joe Desert Eagle, M16 etc), it also is an organisation matter.

Group A, hooray rednecks, trained in hunting and gunmeets. Group B, the US miliatary, veterans from wars all over the place, lots of expirience with all kinda weapons and most important, using squad tatics. Who is gonna win?

2. The not so obvious but even more important problem. No Police state and no dictatorship can survive without the majority of the population standing behind it. If the population decides to rebel on a nationwide margin, no country has the power and even more so, the legitimicy to oppose that for any given time. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Weapons do not help this cause at al unless it is a foreign invader.

This means, if a police state ever came to power in the US, you bet most civilians would run along with it. That the US population was willing to ignore human rights and accept camps, the patriot act and similiar actions completly going against the ideals of democracy and human rights show how such a state could be achieved. In fact, lawwise the US already have all the instruments in place should it ever find a president that sees a reason to stay in office instead of a reelection. Terror regimes are recogized as such only a long time afterwards. It's creeping up on ppl, it 's not happening just so from one day to the other. Bush, from all the US presidents, certainly came closest to the cliches in this regard, even though he vertainly was not a dictator at all. Still, and interestingly enough, it's the gun crowds following him. Which could lead to the conclusion that privately held weapons in the US were rather be used to support terror regimes instead of stopping them in the name of patriotism. That's nothing more then a thought experiment, though.

This way or another, I doubt any future war against opression can be won with guns at all. Technology has advances to a degree it's mostly electronic and internet warfare important here. These who win the propaganda war and claim the interpretion of pictures and messages for themselves usually also win the war.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yes and no. I believe the qualification part would be for those who intend to carry concealed. I would hate to have someone who does not know the difference btn the mag release and the safety carrying on the public way. For your home or business, whatever you can afford.

This is more of a safety issue than restriction upon rights. That is how I see it. I maybe misguided on my thoughts but I don't see me being swayed otherwise.

Sorry for jumping in on your conversation, 1480, I just wanted to offer my concurrence that proper certification should be an obvious requisite for possesion of a firearm in public, despite my extremely pro-gun position. As long as individuals have a choice as to where they obtain their weapons certification (as specified by a state minimum standard for accuracy and weapons safety knowledge) I have no problem with such a requirement (other than the state knowing who has guns, but that's just some extreme-right paranoia I have)

I realize that issues concerning firearms legislation must be of great concern to lawbringers like yourself (and I think you said as much earlier, lots of posts in this thread) so I have a very healthy admiration for a policeman who can appreciate the viewpoint of the gun-owning populace. It shows a healthy respect for the law rather than a conditional respect for it.

I understand that assault weapons, and more importantly, the types of ammunition they fire, is something that could be of immediate interest to you. My particular stance on the issue is that criminals will obtain these weapons and ammunition anyway, so the law-abiding public should have access as well, but I admit that it is a complicated issue when law enforcement officials' live may be put in more jepoardy.

This discussion is odd. The premise out there is the following. If the government all of a sudden becomes evil, real men have guns to fight it.....

Apologies for truncating your statement, all in the interests of avoiding a text wall as much as I can, since I do tend to ramble a bit.

While you are quite correct in your assumption that the fighting prowess and equiptment of the U.S. military (or almost any modern, professional military force for that matter) would far outmatch that of the civilian populace, I believe that you are selling the fighting ability of the private sector woefully short.

The military laughs about private guns. They even laugh about big private guns. Why? Apart from the equipment question (tanks, jets, missles etc vs. your average Joe Desert Eagle, M16 etc), it also is an organisation matter.

There are a great number of wounded servicemembers from our most recent conflict that would heartily disagree with that asumption. One of the great strengths of an insuregency is its' ability to blend in with a populace that the state needs the support of. Sure, you could use an airstrike to destroy their town, but that isn't going to help with public opinion at all.

Group A, hooray rednecks, trained in hunting and gunmeets. Group B, the US miliatary, veterans from wars all over the place, lots of expirience with all kinda weapons and most important, using squad tatics. Who is gonna win?

This statement causes me to wonder whether you have ever actually obtained proficiency with a firearm. It certainly seems to indicate that you have never seen combat. I'm not trying to make a personal attack or anything, because what you're saying seems to be common sense, but have you ever seen what happens to squad cohesion and combat control when someone's head suddenly explodes for no apparent reason, followed by the sound of a gunshot that could have come from anywhere in a 180 degree arc?

I won't bother mentioning the demoralizing effects of using military force against one's own countrymen, since I assume we're looking at the example of hardcore government loyalists, but as much fun as it is to imagine a redneck yokel with a bottle of moonshine and shotgun, the truth is alot different. A trained riflemen, operating in an insurgent capacity, especially if they have the homefield advantage, can be devestating to units as large as a squad.
You discount the potency of a civilian fighter far too easily, and the difficulties in dealing with such a problem.

The not so obvious but even more important problem. No Police state and no dictatorship can survive without the majority of the population standing behind it. If the population decides to rebel on a nationwide margin, no country has the power and even more so, the legitimicy to oppose that for any given time. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Weapons do not help this cause at al unless it is a foreign invader.


Countless examples? Yes, there are examples of revolutions succeeding without an armed populace, and even without much bloodshed, but I'd prefer to hedge my bets. A lot more examples exsist where the populace fought, and if we should ever become one again, I'd like to have a weapon, please.

Furthermore, you completely discount the importance of the right to bear arms as a symbol of autonomy and freedom. This may seem minor, but it might be interesting to note the strict gun-restriction protocols enforced by nearly every (couldn't be bothered to look them all up) modern totalitarian regime. For over 70 years, people in the Soviet Union suffered under the communist regime. Millions were sent to the gulags or executed, the figures vary widely because of innaccurate and/or classified Soviet record-keeping, but all the figures are catastrophic. The average Soviet citizen's living standard was a joke compared to anyone approaching even the lower middle class in the U.S., and yet such a regime persisted for 7 decades. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't suffer that for even one decade if I could help it, because my country is supposed to be based upon the ideals of liberty and autonomy. My right to own a firearm is one of the foundations upon which that ideal is built.


This way or another, I doubt any future war against opression can be won with guns at all. Technology has advances to a degree it's mostly electronic and internet warfare important here. These who win the propaganda war and claim the interpretion of pictures and messages for themselves usually also win the war.
That's an insightful viewpoint, and one on which, for now, we must agree to disagree. While you are totally correct, imo, that the internet and technology are increasingly powerful forces in our lives. But, for the time being, I see the electronic world as being entirely too large and too unregulated to control with any degree of effectiveness. I tend to view the internet as the last truly free society on earth, and in many ways it is, other than an ironically slavish adherence to certain basic electronic functions. Still, you're right about what a powerful force it might become should it ever be tamed.


Bush, from all the US presidents, certainly came closest to the cliches in this regard, even though he certainly was not a dictator at all. Still, and interestingly enough, it's the gun crowds following him.

As if there were a significant voting block whose only value is gun ownership? Bush had a lot of relatively conservative platforms, and conservatives tend to favor pro-gun legislation. None of that is surprising.
On the other hand, you are completely right about oppressive regimes sneaking up on people, which is all the more reason to deny the erosion of our rights, especially our right to own firearms.

I am a law-abiding citizen (minus the occasional delay in paying my vehicle registration tax). I require a weapon to defend myself and others when proper law enforcement agencies are not present, my life is my own responsibility. Should the day ever come when our government casts aside the inviolable laws, dedicated to the preservation of liberty, that our nation's founders set forth, I will be ready.
The maintenance of Freedom from tyranny is, by it's very nature, the responsibility of the people, not of the state. Like my right to vote, I will never surrender my right to to bear arms, for however little difference it may make in the whole, it is my voice, and no one has the right to take it from me.

[August]

And to add a bit to your most excellent post LCpl, a lot of those "Rednecks" (a racially insulting term BTW) that Bewolf mentions are military veterans themselves. We are no strangers to military tactics or training...

[1480]

USLC: nice to see ya back, and a very poignant piece you wrote.

[Sailor Steve]

I'll add my own thoughts to those of my eloquent friend:

Two problems with that.

1. The obvious one. The military laughs about private guns. They even laugh about big private guns. Why? Apart from the equipment question (tanks, jets, missles etc vs. your average Joe Desert Eagle, M16 etc), it also is an organisation matter.
I don't know about your military, but some years ago I was privileged to talk to a former Soviet officer who had immigrated to the 'States. We were talking about the movie Red Dawn, which depicted a Communist invasion of the US, and he commented that the truth is that the one thing they dreaded was an order to do just that. The reason? "We all knew that 'everybody' in America owned a gun, and they all knew how to use them."


Group A, hooray rednecks, trained in hunting and gunmeets. Group B, the US miliatary, veterans from wars all over the place, lots of expirience with all kinda weapons and most important, using squad tatics. Who is gonna win?
What you're missing is that a good number of those 'Rednecks' are also former military, and haven't forgotten what they've learned. Also consider that a lot of current military people have the brains to choose a different side, and many would do so.

2. The not so obvious but even more important problem. No Police state and no dictatorship can survive without the majority of the population standing behind it. If the population decides to rebel on a nationwide margin, no country has the power and even more so, the legitimicy to oppose that for any given time. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Weapons do not help this cause at al unless it is a foreign invader.
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong

Yes, it's true that what happened in Germany seventy-five years ago could happen here - or anywhere - as well. That is exactly what our founders recognized when they put the ideas in place that guide our country. The very first step in taking over is to convince the people that they should give up anything - not just guns - for the "greater good".

I used to work with a retired police officer, and here in Utah, he said, sometimes they operated with the knowledge that if they needed backup in a hurry there was a good chance there would be an armed citizen handy with the knowledge and the courage to lend a hand.

[Hylander_1314]

This lady knows her stuff on the 2nd ammendment, and isn't afraid to tell the elected officials what she thinks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p

[Rockstar]

I like this part ... as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Yep, Obama is going for global domination. Seems to me we will soon be turning turning your country into a battlefield with our assault weapons. :p